Rise of communism

>Improve prospects, especially at the bottom end of the economic spectrum...

How do we do that without making the
government bigger?

>These warped institutions must be eradicated of the subversion and only then will things begin to normalize.

I agree but how do we do this? who do we vote for?

I want to say by the way, it works for me to take the angle of righteousness in this sense, but that means you actually have to walk the walk in order to get your point across. Make no mistake, this is a very real existential struggle, and as such, one must do what is necessary regardless the inconvenience.

I am familiar, but I know Jews are the most wealthy so why would they push an ideology that puts them in more risk than anyone else?
Doesn't make sense to me?

Attached: 1515714104115.jpg (1200x800, 285K)

>Every third person on social media has the hammer and sickle and spouting off about how the rich are fucking them over.
Stop the rich from fucking people over.

in order to be a communist you have to believe that the most murderous ideology in history is the only way to achieve utopia. they are beyond help and need to be put down

We don't vote for anyone already in the game, YOU take the positions of power, because only YOU can be confident that you aren't a corrupt shill.

I am not even shitting you right now, I am already beginning to plan how I might win a seat in office. I have no respect for politics and I am currently studying to become an engineer, however, I also see what is happening to this country and therefore I believe I must do something. If you cannot take an official position, take an unofficial one. Become influential in your own community. You would be shocked just how easy it is, this is something an Everyman can do. Attend common events, find out who runs what, be courteous always. The impetus is no longer on the institution since we know it is subverted, THAT MEANS THE IMPETUS IS ON YOU.

Again, it is a smokescreen. It applies the wrath that should be rightfully applied towards the one percent towards the ten percent of the richest, thus reducing their risk by an order of extraordinary magnitude. Communism literally does not work because it is ALWAYS taken over by a military dictatorship without exception. How better to take advantage of a people for your own gain than to spiritually defeat them AND exploit them by use of force?

Change your fucking corporate feudalism system to something better for the citizen. There you have it.

See, the rest of the world knows also. America is a corporate slave factory.

"How do we combat the rise of communism in America?"

Kill them.

Attached: fuckjidf.jpg (1280x720, 88K)

You tried it once and lost.

Attached: 24993524_10208396020737438_7907035350992581921_n.jpg (480x472, 26K)

Don't blame the free market for peoples laziness.

Do it, start the war, right now, start the war.

Attached: the-devils-recipe-book.jpg (261x442, 114K)

I would try and relate it to nazism as much as possible, because they're basically 2 sides of the same coin.

>Both wanted to eliminate what they believed to be the "Bourgeois" class.
>Both wanted to eliminate capitalism
>Both were willing to use force and fear to further themselves
>Both pushed around small countries because they could
>Both believed that full governmental control was necessary in civilian life.

Not the right but good meme brainlet.

All talk. You will sit there and do nothing.

More like the slave market.

Attached: wage-slave.jpg (720x720, 138K)

You're welcome brainlet.

Attached: 18486380_256638984742392_8447034331333506973_n.jpg (960x956, 134K)

Communism does the same but with a gigantic mafia state brainwashing ideology. Neither that is the solution.

We shall see.

Hope you know guerrilla warfare.

Says the flaggot whose meme flag collapsed without a shot fired. USSR is the most pathetic empire of all time, leaving nothing but ugly af propaganda """art""" and commie blocks behind.

>Top: took four years and half a million lives. Got most of what they wanted during Reconstruction.
>Bottom: took ten years and three global empires to beat. Ends up running Europe 70 years later, albeit in need of a cultural revolution.

The world isn't ready for communism yet. What we need now is capitalism with socialist characteristics.

Yeah yeah. Just sit there and run your mouth. The people little antics your crowd does like shooting up innocent churches and mosques only makes people distance themselves from your party more.

>ever person on kike media is some faggot, cuck, thot, kike or other kind of nigger
>rise
>attractive
>wow i cant disagree with them that capitalism and not the degeneration of our entire society is bad
>jews are definitely not behind anything dont you remeber the retarded "jews are rich too so why would they fund marxism in a country they dont see as their home" argument every retarded marxist keeps repeating. a jewish overrepresentation in every major plot that brings harm to the west makes no sense to me even if its proven fact.
larp harder commie faggot

I think what you are looking for is mutualism

>c-communism will work eventually
How are you any different from any other cult at this point? Besides the body count that is.

And both are still labeled in the history books as losers.

What the Nordic countries have.

>innocent mosques
>taking action to defend you homeland
>little antics
>your party
>Yeah yeah. Just sit there and run your mouth
Get a job faggot

>posts this with flag of USSR
Your lack of self awareness is truly astounding.

Point them at the Rockefellers.

Ask them if their protest group has a bank account in the Caymans and see if they would figure out why a protest group might have an offshore bank account.

Get a life faggot.

Attached: 1527204746412.png (640x498, 198K)

Yes, I know communism failed. Glad you are so observant.

Attached: 1553969737270.jpg (312x368, 29K)

education and punishment for promoters

Attached: socialism2.png (1920x1080, 1.31M)

He does not know the wrath of the white man, we shall not spare a life this time around, we shall not spare one single bit of mercy for our enemies, for as cold and calculated as the shooting was, and precise as it was, we will be even more cold and precise, we shall strike them without mercy!

Attached: violence.jpg (382x437, 38K)

Attached: socialism 3.png (1920x1080, 937K)

Here's a hint: the rich are still rich after the revolution. They've either left and took all their expensive stuff with them or become the king nigger.

Communism is inevitable, get fucked kike lovers.

That may work for a while.

>REEEE USSR WASNT A SHITHOLE FULL OF LOSERS ONCE GIBS FROM WHITEY DRIED UP! ITS NOT A LOSER COUNTRY! IT DIDNT COLLASPE! IT WAS ILLEGAL MOVE! IT DIDNT SUCK! MY RETARDED PROPAGANDA SAYS IT WAS AWESOME! THE CIA SAID SOMETHING SOMEONE TOLD ME!
Get a job faggot

Attached: conflict.png (1920x1080, 1.52M)

youtube.com/watch?v=HxBBYLO3pT8

Get a job faggot

Attached: look.png (1920x1080, 503K)

youtube.com/watch?v=rB8dxgFI0vg

ignore them and accumulate

Attached: ez pz.png (471x304, 27K)

youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g

>communism and socialism are bad

Attached: nazbol-life.jpg (1024x1024, 102K)

>The bear will leave its cave forever.

Attached: hyper.png (755x267, 43K)

DOTR

>ID WAS A GONSPIRUSE!
USSR had a lot more support than the Nazis which you gloat victory over, and it didn't take a single bullet, let alone a world war. Absolutely pathetic.

You don't. Just accept it nerd.

cope more cultist

So if communism failed but Nazism got beat by communism, then doesn't than make Nazism even weaker?

Attached: 1374848781_996741_64.jpg (670x586, 68K)

This. You can fight it all you want migapedes, but we will give you raises, healthcare, and free college in the end because we are such evil communists!

Both of them punched above their weight. Commies on the other hand, often lost even when they outnumbered their foes 5 to 1

It was like 10 vs 3. In a one on one, russia would have gotten wrecked.

With helicopters

Attached: Pinochet Smiling.jpg (1622x1080, 154K)

Well you still didn't punch hard enough.

Attached: nazi-germanv-soviet-russia-nazi-germany-soviet-russia-this-template-31959537.png (500x925, 213K)

Sure.

Attached: PalatableSpicyKitten-size_restricted.gif (445x250, 3.76M)

Commies can't even afford to give food, let alone rasies, hc and education. There's a reason why commie nations goes to shit when capitalist embargo them but nothing happens when it's the other way around.

Death
You should be more worried on the rise of libertarians/ancaps

If all your income goes to food and housing get a better job, move to a cheaper area, and make a budget lazy nigger.

Attached: B2C80744-5D9C-419F-9FA1-83F168EB2D6F.jpg (749x700, 250K)

>Kill commies
>Get fucked by capitalism
'murrica

The Soviet Union lost three times as many as the Nazis did, fighting a defensive war on their home territory, and going up against half an army. I might add that the half-of-an-army was THIS close to taking the capital, the logistics hub of the nation and center of the government suppression-based hegemony. That's not something to brag about.
No. You would execute us for fighting against you, execute your friends for wanting to be the rulers instead, execute everyone else for being too well-off, and then starve the survivors to death. I say "would" because Stalin himself buckled at the task of turning us red, and we haven't forgotten it for a second.

Attached: 1549721816765.png (684x574, 36K)

Only because we bailed Uncle Joe's manlet ass out. You're welcome by the way.

> The Soviet Union lost three times as many as the Nazis did

And yet they kicked the shit out of the nazis.

Now there's some fucking delusion right there. The USSR had a much, much larger war machine at their disposal. A shitty soviet made machine, but all the same.

>Give people propper wages
>Give people housing
>Remove political class sucking corporate dick
>Give people education
>Create worker rights
Wage gap
Capitalism is what created communism in the first place

Attached: CAPITALISM.jpg (1400x788, 171K)

An ancap state would be orders of magnitude worse than anything communism could have ever done.

Having more bodies to throw into the meat grinder isn't exactly something to brag about. Doubt they would have done as well if we didn't bomb their infrastructure back to the stone age either, never mind Lend-Lease.

>extreme individualism is communist
Sigh, I thought you were going somewhere with your posts but you've a few too many chromosomes for real conversation.

Attached: 1553964054023.jpg (500x500, 237K)

Communism is resurging with a vengeance

Attached: df76f2e1078e311b994324ef6910a151a0f4c5a142b0a8128adedf7f851fe5de.jpg (1556x876, 304K)

bad phrasing but he's on the right track

Attached: Theres+not+much+difference+between+a+capitalist+and+communist+society+_54825f25a0abde2bf440350992ee5 (791x1024, 205K)

Oh man you better worry more about those scoundrels who want to be left alone to live a moral and principled life. Brazilians are nearly as bad as communists.

A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:
I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.
II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.
To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages

Based-Pinochet Sytle Executioner and /thread

I. Bourgeois and Proletarians*
The history of all hitherto existing society† is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master‡ and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

lol they will all be democrats by the time they turn 30

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other – Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.
From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.
The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.
Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune : here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked selfinterest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom – Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

Natsocs are nearly as bad as communists in their complete delusional insistence of telling people what capitalism really is. Both groups point to all the terrible socialistic policies interfering in the free market and call them the free market in blatant manipulation tactics to fool low info populations. Shouldn't expect much more from communisms autistic little brother national socialism. Pretending to be a third position is easily the most disingenuous part of your platform, you differ from communists only in the scope of your tyrannical ambitions. Truly we are in the darkest timeline where we who love freedom are left to watch the international and national socialists snarl and bark at each other over the remains of civilization.

Attached: 1553721586426.png (634x483, 341K)

Why would you?

Attached: IMG_2970.jpg (680x510, 94K)

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrowmindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

Communism is replacing the power and resources from the corporations to the government. The problem is still the same: the resources and wealth are centralized. So I'd argue with them that communism is actually capitalism on steroids. Because the profit off the people's labor is centralized into the hands of the very few. And it is highly likely that any organization with an abundance of wealth and power will abuse it. By only providing the very basics of what is promised.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground – what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class.